Deicing and Enchanting Clouds On Flight South

Our early morning flight was on a plane that had a couple of inches of snow on the wings, not to mention snow on the windows.  

But the deicing machines came and cleared the snow and ice off.  There's a short Smithsonian video about deicing planes at the Anchorage International Airport.  Interesting tidbit in the video is that the Anchorage Airport has never been shut down because of snow.  

And once we were up in the air, we went through a fantasy world of clouds.

The video does a reasonable job of capturing magic of flying through this cloud forest.  

In Seattle the ground was wet, but the sun was out.  We took the train to the ferry and the ferry to Bainbridge, where we still had a magical cloudscape.

The Numbers Don't Add Up - The National Gaps vs Alaska Gaps

Kamal Harris lost the popular vote to Donald Trump by almost 10 million votes!

How did the election swing so far to Trump?  How much was voter suppression - mail-in ballots sent too late to get back, Russian bomb threats and who knows what other shenanigans?  Too few polling places in Democratic areas?  Suppression of student votes and other forms?  

How is it that Trump, after losing the popular vote to Clinton by 3 million votes 

"[Clinton] outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia."

and to Biden by 7 million votes, 

"Biden’s popular vote margin over Trump tops 7 million"

now beats Harris by almost 10 million votes?  There were 155 million votes in 2020 but only 145 million this time.  By all accounts there was a record number of people turning out this time.  It would seem some votes are missing.    

The numbers we have would mean the gap between increased by 13 million and by 17 million against Biden.  

It doesn't add up.  I know, racism and misogyny play a role, but not that much.  Especially after all the terrible things we learned about Trump after the 2020 election.  They've been listed by everyone already from Jan 6 through convictions and indictments.  And I'd argue that Harris ran a much better and exciting campaign than Clinton or Biden did.  And it sure looked like there were lots of people voting early and on election day.  

How is it possible for him to have won the popular vote by a huge margin this time when he lost it significantly the two previous races?  

Alaska Totals Don't Match The US Totals

It seems even more suspicious when you look at the Alaska totals.  Alaska is a red state, so the increased Trump numbers should be more exaggerated in Alaska than the US total which includes blue states and red states.  But it isn't.  The opposite.  

Harris did better than Clinton, and not quite as well as Biden in Alaska.  

Trump beat Clinton by 47,000 votes in Alaska in 2016..  

Alaska Div of Elections

Trump beat Biden by 36,000 votes in Alaska.  

Alaska Div of Elections    xxx

  

But Trump only beat Harris by 39,000 votes this time.  3000 votes more than Biden lost by, but 8,000 votes fewer than Clinton lost by in Alaska.  

Alaska Div of Elections

Alaska's a red state.  If the number were consistent with the Lower 48 numbers, she should have lost by a lot more than Biden and Clinton lost by.  But her numbers were better than Clinton's.  

So my dilemma is how to connect the dots in a way that makes sense.  Not to make up some wild story, but to offer a plausible hypothesis or two that could be tested by people with better math skills and better data analysis skills and maybe some ability to uncover Russian (or others) tampering with out election computer systems. 

One could argue that misogyny and racism gave Trump more votes in the Lower 48, but then why not have a similar change in Alaska?  We have among the highest statistics for murdered and raped women.  

Or you could blame it on the economy or immigration and border issues.  But whatever policy issues you might raise, people in Alaska have as much access as Lower 48 voters to Fox News and odd internet sites that supported Trump with relentless lies. 

What makes sense to me is someone tinkered with the computers.  Or the ballots.  That's not that far fetched.  Trump, before the election repeatedly said if he lost it would be because of election rigging.  

Trump always projects his own behavior onto others. He's a criminal and rapist who said the Haitian refugees were criminals and rapists.  If the Guinness Book of Records had a category on liars, Trump would certainly be in the top five if not the winner.  And he calls anyone who puts him in a bad light a liar.  He accuses others of his own behaviors.  

He told us over and over that the elections were rigged.  Does that mean he was rigging them?  Not conclusively, but it's a clue that fits the pattern.  Just need some serious investigation of this.  Just as Trump would have demanded had he lost.  To be sure.  

Comparing the national gaps between Trump and his three presidential opponents and comparing them to the Alaska gaps raises real questions for me.  

I'm not saying it happened, but I'm saying there are serious inconsistencies that require some explanation.  

I'm sure the Trump mafia are laughing at how easy it was to get Harris to concede.  They knew she would play by the traditional rules that they have flouted since . . . always.  

Joe Biden, you've got three months to try out your Supreme Court granted immunity.  I'm not calling for you to blow up Mar-A-Lago,  but I'd like to see you push some limits to find out more about the Russian Trump election interference and how the numbers got so out of whack.  And it might show us that the Supreme Court has more comfort with Trump transgressions than Biden transgressions.  If it does, it might be forced to put more restrictions on Trump's immunity.  

Oh, and maybe look into the medical records of Trump's ear.  We've essentially heard nothing.  If he'd really been hit in ear, we'd have heard the doctors explaining it in detail and Trump would be showing off the scar.  

 

A Fork In The Road Of US And World History

This is one of those historic moments when the world will pull back from the bring of disaster or go crashing into a new world of callous destruction.  The US AID (Agency for International Development) [poster] from Thailand in the late 1960s isn't too dramatic for the choice we face right now.  On the left side it says "Communism,"  in the middle it says "or" and on the right side it says "Freedom." Our choice now is Authoritarian vs. Democracy.  

Despite its many flaws, the US Democracy has been one of the better examples of how humans can work together to build a society based on law and aspirations of peace, of freedom, and of comfort.  The reality has favored some more than others - in terms of freedom, justice, and economic and social security.  And it has had serious negative impacts on the environment.  

But we're at a critical fork in the road.  To the right, we crash into the despotic world ruled by Trump and those who pull his strings, like Putin and his meddling into our election as he has meddled in the Brexit vote, Hungary, France, Italy, and, of course, Ukraine.  He's a force of evil turning the world toward chaos that he thinks he can better thrive in.  

If we go the Trump route, it's not Trump so much I'm worried about.  But it's his backers - from Putin, to the Christian Nationalist mob, and the wealthy cabal on the far right who have been plotting for decades and have already successfully captured the Supreme Court.  

The left fork would give us the first woman president, who is also part East Indian and part Black.  And she's incredibly capable as her career and short campaign has demonstrated.  

There should not even be any doubt that Kamala Harris should win this election.  That there is reflects serious failures in our system.  Failures in the education system that has produced tens of millions of voters who would choose a candidate with hundreds of flaws and misbehaviors any one of which would have destroyed any other presidential candidate.  

Failures in our system that have allowed foreign propaganda to be broadcast through outlets like Fox News and all sorts of internet sites to sow seeds of distrust in our system and in the idea of Truth itself.

Failures in our justice system that allow a convicted felon, who is ineligible to vote in most states, to be a candidate for the presidency.  Who would be ineligible to join our military to be its Commander in Chief.  

Fairlure in our electoral system that disregards the popular vote for an arcane system that focuses all the attention on seven purple states.  

A Harris administration will face many serious problems (including the disgruntled cult members), but it would work on them rationally and in good faith.   And that a Trump administration would exacerbate.  

Often such turning points aren't realized until after they happen - Pearl Harbor, 9/11, the election of FDR, for example.  

But we know today.  We've known a long time that this election is a choice between two very different futures.  One continues to move us toward greater equality, and one hopes, more equal economic prosperity, and continued fights to minimize CO2 emissions and the worst ravages of climate change.  

The other unleashes nasty brutish anger and hate on our country and the world.  

And even if Harris wins the election decisively, we know the depraved one will fight to overturn the election.  

Fortunately, this time round we know his past behaviors and are better prepared.  The public is more aware because, except for his cult members, we've seen how he operated after the last election.  Our government is better prepared for the same reason.  And more importantly, Joe Biden is still president and in control of the military and the national guard and other resources that might be needed.  

My logical brain tells me that it will be a Harris victory.  Reason says that the world has changed in ways that disfavor Trump.

Clinton beat Trump by nearly 3 million votes.   

Biden beat Trump by over 7 million votes.  

Since the 2020 election, we've learned so much more about Trump's evil ways.

He was impeached for the second time.

He created a plot to challenge Biden's victory

He instigated the January 6 insurrection of the Capitol

He stole boxes and boxes full of classified documents and stored some of them in a bathroom in Mar-A-Lago. And shared them, well, we don't know for sure with whom.

He's become a convicted felon and rapist.

He has several serious indictments and trials still waiting for him

The Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade

His public appearances have shown him to be more and more deranged

He's presided over a Nazi rally in New York City

Many of the 'very fine people' he selected to serve in his administration have publicly warned us what a disastrous president he was.  

I can go on and on, but the point is that we know so many more terrible things about him.  Even if his cult stays loyal, there have to be other Republicans and Independents who voted for him last time who either won't vote for Trump, and many who will vote for Harris.  And young people who now are eligible to vote, but weren't four years ago.

We know that the Dobbs decision has galvanized women, especially in light of the Republican states who have passed draconian anti-abortion laws that are killing women who have had miscarriages and other problems with pregnancy.  And we're hearing about many women forced to give birth to their rapists' children.  

Conservative states like Kansas and Ohio have put the right to abortions in their constitutions through ballot measures, by-passing their legislatures.  

The numbers of early voters shows Democrats returning their ballots more than Republicans, shows women outvoting men, shows young voters voting at higher than past levels.  So everything points to a Harris victory.  

But nothing is certain until the votes are counted and whatever gimmicks Trump pulls if he loses are blocked.  

This is one of those huge moments in history where human destiny hangs in the balance.  

[Soon after I arrived in Thailand in 1967 as Peace Corps teacher in rural Thailand, I was taken out one night to a village by an AID employee.  A village not unlike the one on the right of the poster.  He hung a sheet up across the road and showed movies about the danger of communism.  I suspect, in hindsight, I was being tested and I failed dismally - to my credit, I'd like to think.  AID (CIA?) never approached me again, to my knowledge.  But I did end up with this poster.]

Why LATimes and Washington Post Presidential Non-Endorsements Are So Problematic

The previous post concerned how the billionaire owners of the LA Times and Washington Post blocked their editorial boards from endorsing Kamala Harris for president and why I cancelled my subscription to the LA Times. [I don't have a subscription to the Washington Post.] 

We know that Jeff Bezos has other business deals with the US government [sorry, there's a paywall] - with Amazon and with other ventures - that a Trump presidency would, in Bezos' mind - be quashed.  And he may be right.  Patrick Soon-Shiong also has other businesses that possibly could be jeopardized by a Trump presidency.  Plus Trump has said that he would punish media and others who oppose him.  

I focused on what appears to be their fear that if Trump were elected, they would be punished for such an endorsement.  I compared that behavior to the behavior of the Washington Post and NYTimes when they published the Pentagon Papers in 1971 - a daring display of courage and the power of press.  

I spent more time on the Pentagon Papers than I intended to, because I realized that while I was a young adult at the time, anyone under 53 today, hadn't even been born yet.  If 'Pentagon Papers' means anything to most of them, it probably is pretty superficial.  

Think what people born after next year will know and understand about the 2024 election in 2077!  The historic lessons get lost if we don't keep them alive.  

So I decided to postpone the second part of that post to another post.  

Here's the part I left for a future post - putting their actions into context using Vaclav Havel's "The Power of the Powerless."  You can see the whole essay at the link.  Or a much briefer overview at Wikipedia.

It's a long essay, written by then Czech playwright, and later, president, about how people in an authoritarian regime could still maintain their freedom.  He's specifically talking about the Soviet form of dictatorship that ruled Czechoslovakia at that time.  There are many people with greater expertise on Havel's work than I.  But this is my limited take on this situation.  

When I heard about the two billionaire owners of two major newspapers killing editorials that would have endorsed Kamala Harris for president, the part I thought of was the story of the greengrocer putting up signs in his shop window.   You can read it below.  I've highlighted some of it in red.  

"III 

"The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

"I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.

"Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

"Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

"Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe."

The situation of the greengrocer under Soviet authoritarianism and the Bezos and Soon-Shiong is not a perfect analogy, but it shows how the no-holds-barred style of Trump causes even billionaires to modify their behavior rather than draw unwanted attention to themselves.

The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message

In the case of both newspaper owners, not publishing an endorsement of Harris was a sign to Trump with a clear message that they didn't want him upset at them if he were elected.  They didn't want their companies punished for supporting Harris.

the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. 

Not endorsing Harris was the equivalent of putting the a sign in the window that says, 'we will not oppose you' to Trump.  The low foundation of their obedience. We do not want you to punish us in some way.  And the low foundation of Trump's power is that the endorsements were perfectly legal and normal, yet they were afraid to publish the endorsements.  

The 'ideology' they were hiding behind was the idea that newspapers should  maintain "political neutrality," should be objective observers that don't take sides, but impartially report the news.  Of course, impartiality is not possible.  A news outlet can try to report objective facts, but the employees and owners all have values that color what events are reported and how they are reported.  Or, in this case, not reported.  

And the idea that newspapers must be objective observers and non-partisan is one that many hold, but it is not historically the only norm.  

Early Colonial newspapers were often "a sideline for printers."  Benjamin Franklin was such a printer with a newspaper on the side.  And they were quite partisan.  During that era John Peter Zenger was found innocent when a governor tried to shut down his partisan attacks.  Do kids still learn about Zenger in school these days?

The fact that Trump has threatened to attack the media as president and more recently to talk about his political enemies being executed - as he let the January 6 mob erect a gallows for his then Vice President - is all the more reason that they should have endorsed his opponent.  

Another issue this raises is the phenomenon of billionaires buying existing newspapers.  On the one hand, this is a way for some newspapers to survive.  And it's probably better than newspapers being owned by corporations that own many newspapers and thus limit the number of different voices available to the public.  I say newspapers here, but this also applies to radio and television.  

And yet, at the same time, the internet has provided access to way more voices than ever.  Perhaps we're just waiting for the dust to settle.  Or the Musks of the world are going to buy up those voices.  It's a time of change and we have to just hold on until it becomes more settled.  

But the problem of billionaires owning papers is that they have large financial interests that can easily come into conflict with the objectivity of the paper they own.  In Bezos' case, Amazon has interest in large government contracts which some have suggested as a reason he vetoed the endorsement.  

The key point in all this for me, the reason I thought it important enough to cancel my LA Times subscription, is the issue Havel raises about having personal freedom, no matter how small, and to use it.  

Authoritarians have control because people voluntarily obey them.  Even when there is no law and no order, people anticipate what the regime wants them to do, and do it.  People cede their autonomy voluntarily.  As did the two owners of the newspapers.  And as the many Republican politicians who trashed Trump during the 2016 primaries - Cruz, Graham, Rubio, etc. - but then fell in line to support him.  Trump is ruthless, but Stormy Daniels and E. Jean Carroll stood up to him and won.  

If Trump wins Tuesday, and we get conflicting reports on how close it is, we will all be facing life in an authoritarian state.  Understanding Havel will be important.  

Cancelling My LA Times Subscription [Updated]

[UPDATES:  Here's the link to the second post on this topic. The Nov 3 UPDATE is at the bottom of the original article]

Overview:  I'm giving context to why I cancelled my subscription.  I look back to heroic actions taken by the  New York Times and the Washington Post during the Vietnam war to compare to what appears to be the cowardly action of the Post and the LA Times owners today.  

I'd note that while other papers have discussed the LA Times' decision, the LA Times as so far not had any article about this issue. 

So we start with the Pentagon Papers story.  Then we go to the vetoing of editorials supporting Kamala Harris for president by the owners of the two newspapers this week.  

Then I mention an important article by Vaclav Havel that directly addresses what happens when owners of businesses voluntarily comply to pressure from authoritarian governments.  But I'll save that discussion for the next post.  

 In 1971, The New York Times and the Washington Post were given copies of "The Pentagon Papers."  This was a classified report on the Vietnam War.  .  

One of the researchers, Daniel Ellsberg, was disturbed that the research showed that the US government was lying to the people of the United States about major aspects of the Vietnam war.  

Student protests had been going on constantly.  In spring of 1970, four students at Kent State were shot dead by National Guardsman called to quell the protests on campus.  This led to huge protests all over US campuses.  

While I was a young adult during the times of the Pentagon papers and it is all still vivid in my mind, I'm writing all this because I realize that every US citizen under the age of 53, was not even born then.  Even though they may have heard about the Pentagon Papers, most are probably have a very fuzzy understanding of the significance.  I know that was my experience of current events that took place in recent history but before I was born. I'm just summarizing some highlights.  You can read more at Wikipedia.  Their article starts with the contents of the Papers.  You have to scroll down to learn about the politics of publishing them in the newspapers.  

Ellsberg copied the Pentagon Papers.  In those days you generally had to copy page by page.  He took them to Kissinger (who he knew) and to  key Members of Congress, but didn't get the support he needed.  Then he went to the New York Times and shared them.  The Times began publishing excerpts on June 13.

The Nixon Administration tried to stop the publication by the Times with an injunction.  The Washington Post then began to publish the documents.  Also, Alaska US Senator Mike Gravel placed the full Pentagon Papers into the public record.

The Supreme Court decided 6-3 that

"Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.

— Justice Black[56]"  [Wikipedia]

Unfortunately the court's decision doesn't appear to be a compelling value to the owners who quashed the endorsements in their papers.  

[Another interesting comparison to today: the Times published the first piece on June 13.  The US Supreme Court announced its decision on June 30!]

Ellsberg was personally charged but was not found guilty.  

I offer you this because this week the owners of both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post overruled their editorial boards' decisions to endorse Kamala Harris for president.  There have been resignations by editors of both papers over this.  

We can speculate why the owners took these actions.

The MSNBC headline was:

"The Billionaire Owners of the Washington Post and LA Times Just Capitulated to Trump"

NPR's headline didn't attribute a motive to the Washington Post's decision, 

"Washington Post' won't endorse in White House race for first time since 1980s"

but quoted former Washington Post former Executive Editor Martin Baron:  

"This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."

This is, of course, why I have included the story of the Pentagon Papers.  This is a far different action this week by  the owner of the Washington Post than we saw from Katherine Graham, the owner of the Post in 1971.  

Jeff Bezos, of course, is the owner of Amazon and one of the richest men in the world.  

Patrick Soon-Shiong is a billionaire doctor who got rich based on medical technology he developed.  His parents fled China during the Japanese occupation in WW II and Soon-Shiong was born in South Africa in 1952.  I don't know exactly what his situation was, but here's a description of the status of Chinese in South Africa in Wikipedia:

"In 1966 the South African Institute of Race Relations described the negative effects of apartheid legislation on the Chinese community and the resulting brain drain:

No group is treated so inconsistently under South Africa's race legislation. Under the Immorality Act they are Non-White. The Group Areas Act says they are Coloured, subsection Chinese ... They are frequently mistaken for Japanese in public and have generally used White buses, hotels, cinemas and restaurants. But in Pretoria, only the consul-general's staff may use White buses .. Their future appears insecure and unstable. Because of past and present misery under South African laws, and what seems like more to come in the future, many Chinese are emigrating. Like many Coloured people who are leaving the country, they seem to favour Canada. Through humiliation and statutory discrimination South Africa is frustrating and alienating what should be a prized community.[5]: 389–390"

One would think that both Bezos and Soon-Shiong are rich and powerful enough to be able to stand up to Trump.  But I'm guessing they both have goals and ambitions about what they still want to do with their companies.  And they have put these ambitions above risking the possibility of retribution from Trump if he gets elected.  

And I'm guessing Soon-Shiong, while treated as a non-white in South Africa, also took some solace that he wasn't treated as Black.  It would be interesting to know how he felt when Nelson Mandela was freed from prison and eventually became the president of South Africa and won a Nobel Prize.  

His behavior in this matter suggests those events didn't really register with him positively.  He's certainly now showing Mandela's courage in fighting an authoritarian government.

This post is long enough.  I wanted to also talk about Vaclav Havel's essay, "The Power of the Powerless" which is highly relevant to the actions of actions of these two wealthy newspaper owners.  I'll do that in another post.  For those who want to get ahead, here's a link to the essay.  It's very good.

Here's the link to the follow up post on Havel's essay.

Cancelling the LA Times subscription was a clear choice, though not an easy one.  I grew up in LA and when my mother died, I inherited the house that I lived in from 6th grade through the beginning of college.  It's the house my mother lived in for 65 years, that we visited often, and that my children spent time when they visited their grandmother.  In addition to getting reasonably good news coverage, I also got local news that was relevant to owning a house there and visiting.  

But various social media folk have suggested other newspapers to switch to and I'll look into that.  Though I won't get  the local LA and California news.  I'd note that when you cancel, you get a list of one or two word reasons to let them know why you cancelled.  The best I could do was 'editorial policy' or something like that.  Leaving comments elsewhere limits you to very few words.  

[UPDATE Sunday November 3]

From an October 25, 2024  article in the LA Times, we learn what Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owner, said about the decision not to endorse anyone for president, even though the editorial board was about to endorse Harris:

“'I have no regrets whatsoever. In fact, I think it was exactly the right decision,' he said in an interview with The Times on Friday afternoon. 'The process was [to decide]: how do we actually best inform our readers? And there could be nobody better than us who try to sift the facts from fiction' while leaving it to readers to make their own final decision."

Today's LA Times editorial page seems to belie that policy.  Instead of "leaving it to readers to make their own decisions," the LA Times has a long list of ballot measures and candidates they endorse for other offices from local and state to federal.    

"Election 2024

The Times’ electoral endorsements for Nov. 5

STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURES

Proposition 2: Yes

Proposition 3: Yes

Proposition 4: Yes

Proposition 5: Yes

Proposition 6: Yes

Proposition 32: Yes

Proposition 33: No

Proposition 34: No

Proposition 35: No

Proposition 36: No

LOS ANGELES CITY

City Council District 2: Adrin Nazarian

City Council District 10: Heather Hutt

City Council District 14: Ysabel Jurado

Charter Amendment DD: Yes

Charter Amendment LL: Yes

Charter Amendment HH: Yes

Charter Amendment II: Yes

Charter Amendment ER: Yes

Charter Amendment FF: No

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

District attorney: George Gascón

Measure A: Yes

Measure E: Yes

Measure G: Yes

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Seat 1: Andra Hoffman

Seat 3: David Vela

Seat 5: Nichelle Henderson

Seat 7: Kelsey Iino

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

District 1: Sherlett Hendy Newbill

District 3: Scott Schmerelson

District 5: Karla Griego

Measure US: Yes

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES

Office No. 39: Steve Napolitano

Office No. 48: Ericka J. Wiley

Office No. 97: Sharon Ransom

Office No. 135: Steven Yee Mac

Office No. 137: Tracey M. Blount

STATE LEGISLATURE

Assembly District 52: Jessica Caloza

Assembly District 54: Mark Gonzalez

Assembly District 57: Sade Elhawary

Senate District 35: Michelle Chambers

U.S. HOUSE AND SENATE

U.S. Senate: Adam B. Schiff

27th Congressional District: George Whitesides

30th Congressional District: Laura Friedman

45th Congressional District: Derek Tran

47th Congressional District: Dave Min

Read the full endorsements online at latimes.com/opinion."

The Apprentıce - A Good Way To Understand Trump's Behavior

 We saw the film about Roy Cohn yesterday afternoon.  Of course, it also is about Donald Trump - the Apprentice in the film title.

Here's the LA Times review.  It also tells the story of how it was feared the film would not be publicly shown before the election.  But, alas, it appears it was in Anchorage - at just about every theater, all day, and now it's gone.  It would serve the public much better to have it show at different theaters different weeks, so that word of mouth could get out.  Since the Anchorage Daily News no longer lists or reviews movies, you pretty much have to go look on line and seek out movies, rather than get reminders while you're reading the newspaper.  

I started posting about Roy Cohn back in 2016, and it wasn't flattering.

June 19, 2016:  

". . . attack, counterattack and never apologize."  In the movie these are edited to Cohn's and Trump's three rules:   

1. Attack, Attack Attack
2. Admit nothing, Deny everything
3. No matter what happens, you claim victory and never admit defeat

You can hear Cohn (actor Jeremy Strong) list them in this trailer.  

 

June 24, 2016

"Roy Cohn was one of the most loathsome characters in American history, so why did he have so many influential friends?"

There really isn't much in the movie that adds to those eight year old posts.  

But seeing it today, in hindsight, you recognize many characteristics of Trump.  

Listen to any time he talks.  He follows Cohn's rules.  He attacks.  He never admits anything.  He denies everything.  And he claims victory despite what really happened.  (Did you know he totally defeated Harris in their debate?)

He doesn't answer questions that would reflect negatively on him.  Instead he changes the subject and/or attacks one or more of his current perceived enemies. He lies about what they've done, and calls them demeaning names.  

He never apologizes.  Ever.  

Listen for these three every time he talks.  

What most struck me about the movie was, what I'll call grittiness.  It's well edited, but it's often dark and there's a lot of hand held camera.  But it moves right along.  

Again, because I researched Cohn back in 2016 and did those two posts listed above, there isn't much in the film I didn't know and a lot I knew that was slightly touched on in the movie.  For instance, Cohen mentions (while telling Trump he's crazy to get married) that he almost got married to Barbara Walters until he realized she'd own half of what he owned.  That marriage would only be a way to cover his homosexuality.  But the movie doesn't tell you, Barbara Walters stayed loyal to him because he helped get a warrant for her father dismissed.  

But what did strike me as I watched the movie, was how Cohn, in two instances, helps Trump by going through his vast collection of tapes (he recorded all the rooms in his house when he had parties), he was able to get two rulings against Trump changed, by black mailing the decision makers with his tapes.  

I've speculated at times about Trump having dirt on most GOP members of Congress which keeps them supporting him, despite earlier denunciations of Trump.  Think of Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio, just to name three.  The movie reinforces that belief.  I wouldn't even be surprised if Russian intelligence hasn't helped him gather such compromising evidence.  

I was hoping to get this up to encourage folks to see the film.  Unfortunately that doesn't see likely for folks in Anchorage, but I'd hope in other places the film will play longer.  

I'd note that at the end of September, we let our Netflix subscription lapse.  I was hoping that would give me more time to read and blog, but so far that hasn't happened that way.  My daily hour at my local elementary school, and preparation for it, takes up a lot of time, but is very gratifying.  The teacher said the other day that my guy is doing much better in class.  I decided that I need to have him work on reading in Spanish.  He can't do that fluently, but he can slowly, and with help, work out the words.  And I can feel his sense of achievement when he gets the word.  In English, he doesn't know enough words to get that satisfaction.  And my hope is that when he can read more fluently in Spanish, English will be easier to tackle.  But he does have a fair passive English vocabulary - that is, he understands things I ask him to do.  And just hearing me repeat the same kinds of questions and instructions in English everyday drills those words and phrases in.  

Farrago Follow Up - What Will Trump Do?

The previous post, Farrago, meandered into the power struggles in the US and the assault on science in favor of fantastic explanations of things.  [I prefer 'fantastic explanations' to 'conspiracy theories' because there are in fact conspiracies and people who pursue real conspiracies - like the Federalist Societies 40 year plan to pack the Supreme Court with justices who would rule their way - aren't always 'crackpots.'] 

Reader Jacob left a lengthy comment which you can see there.    Rather than answer it there, I've decided to answer it in a new post.  

Well, since I know many of you won't go back to see what he wrote, I've decided to put it here again.

"Jakob in IrelandSunday, October 6, 2024 at 5:07:00 AM AKDT

Hi Steve. Just a thought from across the pond...

When you started your enquiry last year asking HOW we got to this point (of finding more & more people believing the unproven in so many things around us) you more often than not explained the difference boiling down to university education levels. 

I felt, and still do, that you do have the view of someone from the world of questions, of successfully negotiating the discipline of the academic reasoning & rewards. I also acknowledge that you (graciously) agreed that talent isn't limited to intellectual gifts, but also those of the 'multiple intelligences' view of human ability & talents.

So with all that, we plunged (as so many did then) into just HOW we could be at this political junction of PRO and CON re what we thought to be ‘dictator-in-waiting’ Donald Trump. We didn't succeed in pinning the tail-on-that-donkey, did we?

So today, I’m wiping my slate clean: I’m with many, if not most here, asking this question: Does Mr Trump plan to win regardless his methods to achieve it?

Given these past years of many quick checks and deep dives with so-many streams of thought & analysis, I have honed my own little thought for this presidential election in America, if anyone wishes to consider it. Mr Trump’s preparation is laid, his goal easy to know. He only awaits the day in which his blow will be struck.

Mr. Trump’s seizure of the presidency (at precious cost to a Republic) can be affirmed by his Supreme Court and a Congress with too-narrow mandate to intervene in a politically effective way. But most importantly, far too many Americans have ‘drunk the Kool-Aid’.

I am nearly 18 years from living in the USA now; I am also a person born to its promise & culture, to its history & dreams. I moved countries to know other histories, other ways of seeing law, culture & dreams. I can admit my shock to see so many Americans willing to surrender rule-of-law to a man of autocratic instincts, hoping his constitutional betrayal will deliver their aspirations. I have told European friends (here) that Americans have bedrock faith in their Constitution and its rule-of-law standards. It will win out.

Now I suspect I held a child’s faith: Too many Americans are faith-weary. So many flock to a ‘strong man’ promising his so-sweet nothing, “I’ll take back control for you.”

I am sorry to say that I am relieved to live where I do, where so very many here are asking, “What is happening to the USA?”"

Here's my response.  

Jacob,  

Lots of questions rolled up into the reply.  And lots of answers too.  

First, your comment “you more often than not explained the difference boiling down to university education levels.”  I suspect that reflects more what you hear than what I’ve said over the years.  I have indeed argued that good education does train students to think logically and critically (among other things.)  That could start happening in elementary school and be honed further in middle and high school in a good school with good teachers.  At good schools the attentive students graduate with varying levels of those skills.  And I've acknowledged that a rigorous logical, left brain, education is the best way to start all kids.  But I would add that all kids should be given the space to work on something that interests them, and a good school would then use their areas of interest, to cultivate logical reasoning in a context that makes sense to each kid.  

As students go deeper into those topics at the university level, they can improve on those skills.  Statistics that show college educated voters tend (note ‘tend’) to lean more Democratic than people with fewer years of education.  

“The last few election cycles have been marked by an increasing divergence in outcomes based on education levels, with Democrats making serious gains with college-educated voters while Republicans win far greater shares of non-college educated white voters.” from Politico  

But you don’t have to get those skills only in school.  People who are different in some significant way from the ‘average’ - different religion, ethnicity, sexual identity, etc. - often grow up in at least two different worlds: 1) their family and group world and 2) the larger white world that has traditionally ruled the US.  And for those with non-conforming gender identity, they can be in a different reality from their family.  

The dissonance between how these citizens who experience one reality at home and a different reality at school often gives them a leg up on seeing the big picture, on seeing there isn't just one reality.  

And there are lots of others who get the dissonance even if they don’t go to college.  And there are many college graduates who got by without learning how to think critically.  Or who can, but have blind spots where they can’t apply those skills.  Or they apply them in a twisted way.  Like logically justifying white nationalism or misogyny based on odd facts and premises.    

Getting back on track

Hoping people would come to their political senses when they were given the facts was not something I held out much hope for, though it’s my natural flex.  I used to tell students writing reports for actual administrators that emotions always trump reason if there’s a conflict between the two.  So they needed to know their clients’ values so they could write their reports not so it made sense only to the student, but also to the client.  

I did hold out hope that enough US voters would choose the Democratic candidate over Trump.  That isn’t unreasonable since that happened in 2016 and 2020.  Though the way the electoral college works, that’s not enough.  Harris has to win big so the GOP can’t fight with any credibility over crumbs in swing states.  And can’t plausibly argue that Trump won.  Of course there will always be those who deny reality as the 2020 election has shown.

Now to your first question, which you essentially answered yourself affirmatively.  

"Does Mr Trump plan to win regardless his methods to achieve it?"

I agree that he does plan to challenge the election no matter what.  All the talk of rigging elections is meant to get people ready for such a challenge. The bigger the margin of victory the harder that will be.  The many lawyers and others who have been fighting Trump’s original challenges in 2020 are well versed in his strategy and paying close attention to new ones.  

And this time round, Biden is in charge of the military and national guard and other levers of power that will be much better prepared than in 2021 post election.  

And the people he has working for him are skilled administrators - as we can see in the preparations for Helene and the coordinated efforts after the storm hit, getting inflation down, implementing the Infrastructure bill, etc.  

Will Trump supporters, those who believe all his lies, come out with weapons and raise hell?  Possible.  Even likely in some places.  

One other point I’d like to make concerning reason and non-reason.  It’s clearer and clearer that Putin and Iran and North Korea have all been using the internet to stir up conflict in the US (not to mention in UK and France and other parts of the world.).  We know about it explicitly in 2016.  It's been noted in every election since.  It’s likely they were at it earlier during the time they were grooming Trump as an asset.  They played a role in Brexit.   They’re at it over Gaza and Israel.  Taking down democracies strengthens their message to their own people that democracy is inherently unstable and bad.  It also makes their aggression much easier.  

Playing on people’s fears - of immigrants, of crime, of economic disaster - is always going to capture a certain number of people.  Trump’s non-stop lies, amplified by Fox, and main stream media,  is a well planned strategy to make it impossible to tell truth from fiction.  Everything Trump says is projection of his own actions onto his opponents.  With AI and hard to spot fake video, the ability to tell truth from lies gets harder.  All traditional authorities are challenged - scientists, universities, doctors, teachers, anyone who ‘can prove’ something with more than sweeping declarations of how things are, are targets.  The Right’s attack on public education is part of that package.  They want to get public money funneled to private schools that they can control.  

It’s ironic that until Reagan began attacking government, it was usually the Left that challenged government and the Right that defended it.  

Trump has good reason to fight for power, even after he loses.  If there is a Harris administration he will be on trial still and very likely sentenced to prison. At which point I wouldn’t be surprised if he fled to Cuba or another Russian ally.  Or Saudi Arabia.  

When he’s gone this isn’t over.  Our authoritarian enemies will continue to do what they can to weaken the West.  The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society will continue to fight for the power of the rich white elite to control the country.  

Fortunately their perfect candidate is also a huge liability.  Republicans’ eagerness to exercise their post Roe power at the state level has alerted and alarmed sensible voters.  And their demands for abject loyalty has resulted in less than stellar candidates in down ballot races - like North Carolina’s Mark Robinson, candidate for Governor.  

We’ll know in a month how the election goes, and then we’ll have to wait and see how the post election goes.  

You may well have made a good decision when you established yourselves in Northern Ireland.  But if the US goes down, no one is safe.   

Farrago

[This was written Sept. 22, but I wrote it under Pages instead of Posts.  Pages are the tabs up above (and below the banner.  So I'm adding it in today.]

I've heard of Fargo, but farrago is a word that wasn't in my vocabulary until I saw this LA Times article on Sean M. Kirkpatrick, who is

"the first director of the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, or AARO"

or the government's lead investigator of UFOs.

Here's where I encountered the word - I'm giving you more so you can see the context.

"From the start, Kirkpatrick says, he was determined to conduct a rigorously empirical inquiry: “We were looking for any data to substantiate any claims that were being made to Congress or in the social media arena.”

That applied not only to pilots’ reports of objects that seemed to have displayed unusual aeronautical behavior, but a farrago of reports in the press, online and among committed UFO believers about purportedly secret government programs to collect, examine and even attempt to reverse-engineer technology supposedly retrieved from crashed extraterrestrial UAPs."

My initial reaction was that the word was thrown in to sound erudite, as often is the case with such words.  But this is a perfect use of the word as I understand it after reading the definition.  

farrago /fə-rä′gō, -rā′-/

noun

An assortment or a medley; a conglomeration. A mass composed of various materials confusedly mixed; a medley; a mixture.Similar: medley/mixture

A collection containing a confused variety of miscellaneous things.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

Also noteworthy in the article is the assault of the ignorant against science.

“In my case,” Kirkpatrick told me a few days ago, “I’ve been accused of lying to the American people.”

He further revealed to the Guardian that he had experienced efforts of UFO true believers to “threaten my wife and daughter, and try to break into our online accounts — far more than I ever had as the deputy director of intelligence [of U.S. Strategic Command]. I didn’t have China and Russia trying to get on me as much as these people are.” 

The article compares the folks who refuse to believe the findings that there was no evidence of extra terrestrial visitors to the folks who refuse to believe in the COVID origin stories or that vaccines work.  

That points to “a larger problem with public opinion about scientific inquiry — science by social media versus science by scientific method,” he says. “You’re seeing the degradation of critical thinking skills and rational thought when it comes to analyzing what’s out in the world.”

"When scientific data confound received beliefs, he says, 'people cry ‘conspiracy,’ or ‘the data is wrong,’ or ‘scientists are making it up.’... Well, some of these scientists have been around for 30 or 40 years. If you don’t believe they know what they’re doing, then what are you going to base your decisions on in the future? Just pure belief and speculation?'

Kirkpatrick is working on another article on the topic of misinformation. 'I see what I was doing on UAP and misinformation as a microcosm of many other issues that challenge the U.S. today. That is, the division across belief lines where evidence suggests a contrary opinion that conflicts with one’s own belief system or political system.'” 

 

Time To Try The Granola. Why People Should Stop Buying The Republican Brand

Suppose you're still buying the same brand of cereal your mom bought for you.  

But after years of loyalty, you've noticed that it no longer tastes or crunches the same, the boxes are smaller, they're only 2/3 full, and they cost way more.  The ingredients list lots of chemicals now.  Your stomach feels queasy after eating a bowl.  But at the store, your brain is wired to put  that brand in your cart.  .  

A friend says she's stopped buying that brand and now eats Brand Y granola.  "Granola," you reply, "that's hippie food."  

It's time to review your old prejudices and find out that granola is much better than that old brand you cling to without satisfaction.  

I suspect a lot of Republicans keep voting R because it's how they were raised.  Voting Democratic is like eating granola, even though they know that the R brand isn't what it used to be.  Plus they keep hearing  how evil the D brand is.  

But they've met Democrats, people at work, school, the gym.  They seem like ok people, on the surface anyway.  Some are even married, have kids, work, own homes, pay their bills on time, watch football and baseball, even hunt, and other 'normal' things. They don't appear to be the evil terrible people R politicians and media say they are.  

Republicans, your brand is no longer what it once was.  I know it's part of your identity.  But like any brand that has deteriorated over the years, it's time to let go.  

It's no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower.  Or even Nixon, Reagan, or the Bushes.  

Your brain is telling you it's time, but this is all you've known since you were a kid.  It's so hard to make a change, but it's time to face the reality that the R brand isn't the brand your parents raised you on.  It's now a toxic scam.  Time to try the granola.  

Trump Beat Biden In Alaska By Only 35K Votes, 234K Didn't Vote

In 2016, Trump beat Clinton, in Alaska, by 46,943 votes.  

From Alaska Div of Elections

While that seems like a lot of votes, there were 207,287 registered voters WHO DIDN'T VOTE.  That's fewer than the number who voted, but it's still a huge number.  60% of registered voters voted.  

A caveat:  Not all the people on the Alaska voter list still live in Alaska or are even alive.  But even if the ineligibles equaled 25% (1/4) of the list, that would still leave 150,000 people who didn't think it was important or convenient enough to vote.  

From: Alaska Div of Elections

In 2020, Trump beat Biden, in Alaska, by 35,742 votes.  

This time there were 234,247 people who didn't vote.  Say, 175,000 of them were still eligible Alaska voters.

And this time, according to the State's website, there were almost 70,000 more voters.  Trump's winning margin shrank by 21,000 votes, by more than 1/3.  

We learned a lot more about Trump after the 2016 election.

A lot of things happened during Trump's presidency from a pandemic during which Trump said repeatedly that COVID would just go away. See this CNN graphic of his many such proclamations along with the increasing number of cases.

And Trump was impeached once.  

And I suspect, sadly, that many people voted for Biden (but not Clinton) just because he was a man.

A lot more has happened since the 2020 election. 

• There was the January 6 insurrection that he promoted. 
• Another impeachment.
• The 50 plus lost Trump court cases challenging Biden's election win.
• The various Trump indictments and convictions.
• The classified documents stored in a Mar-a-Lago bathroom.
• The overturning of Roe v Wade
• The publicity over the Supreme Court's right wing justices' unreported gifts, in one case, millions of dollars worth.
• The Court's granting immunity to presidents.

Meanwhile the Biden administration lowered the inflation they inherited and passed huge infrastructure bills which have pumped billions into the US economy and are repairing much of our long neglected bridges, roads, electrical grids, internet access, ports, airports, and many other facilities. 

Sure, many die-hard Trump voters limit their intake of information to media that only say good things about Trump and terrible things about Democrats.  But many others - Independents, Republicans - who do get more than Fox News and further right social media propaganda.  

I have no data on how many of the Alaska non-voters were male or female or something else.  But surely there are 30,000 Alaska women, and men with daughters, who for whatever reason, did not vote in 2020, but who have an interest in making sure that the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe, will not lead to restrictions on female health procedures in Alaska.  Let's let them know they can flip Alaska blue.  Yes, I know it's a stretch, but it's certainly within possibility.

For context, NPR reported in 2020 the margins in the swing states that voted for Biden:

Arizona - 10,457 votes

Georgia - 12,670

Michigan - 154,188

Nevada - 33,506

Pennsylvania - 81,660

Wisconsin - 20,282

 Alaska has way fewer people than these states.  Nevertheless, there were 237,000 registered voters in Alaska who didn't vote in 2020.